A
Aloysius
Guest
That little word "creation" sure is a big can of worms. What does it mean, for instance, that we are created and "god wasn't" (which is one definition of what "god" means).
We are stardust; that is to say, we were created from molecules that originated in stars. Stars came from the universe. They were created from - by current theory - spacetime. Notice that nothing in the above description, as yet, has posited "creation" in the sense of "something from nothing". No conservation laws have been broken.
So, if stars came from the universe, and the universe came from the big bang, and "god=universe", then this seems to put us on an equal basis to god.
Nothing was "created". Everyting either was and is, or was not and is not.
Caveat: all logical arguments about the transcendental are doomed to failure. I think it's something to do with Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem.
So what I've concluded cannot be correct
We are stardust; that is to say, we were created from molecules that originated in stars. Stars came from the universe. They were created from - by current theory - spacetime. Notice that nothing in the above description, as yet, has posited "creation" in the sense of "something from nothing". No conservation laws have been broken.
So, if stars came from the universe, and the universe came from the big bang, and "god=universe", then this seems to put us on an equal basis to god.
Nothing was "created". Everyting either was and is, or was not and is not.
Caveat: all logical arguments about the transcendental are doomed to failure. I think it's something to do with Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem.
So what I've concluded cannot be correct